Total Recall

“Total Recall” is a remake of a 1990 film of the same name, which itself was an adaptation of the Phillip K. Dick short story “We Can Remember It for You Wholesale.” Yeah, I know, Hollywood is really running out of ideas. As Bullz-Eye’s Jason Zingale put it, “[Director Len] Wiseman does his best to freshen things up, and in some cases, he actually improves upon the original, but you can never quite shake that feeling of déjà vu while watching the film, and that only begs the question, why bother remaking it at all?” Rave reviews I know, but I’ll give you a quick synopsis anyway.

Collin Farrell plays Donald Quaid, a factory worker disenchanted with life in the stereotypical sci-fi “future world” (think “Blade Runner” with better CGI). To cure his woes, Quaid seeks out Rekall, a company that implants artificial memories so realistic you can’t tell the difference between them and your true past. The procedure goes wrong (imagine that) and Quaid finds out his wife, Lori (Kate Beckinsale), is a government agent assigned to watch over him. It’s the opening scene of the second “Austin Powers” movie, only her guns are guns, not breasts. Along the way, Quaid finds out he too is a secret agent so undercover not even he knew about it (shit’s deep, bro), and teams up with rebel fighter Melina (Jessica Biel) against the United Federation of Britain and its evil chancellor, Cohaagen (Bryan Cranston).

As the source material has gone through each step of the adaptation and remake process, its purpose—the major themes and feelings, indeed the story it was trying to tell—has become increasingly diluted. Dick posed philosophical questions about what makes reality “real” and memories “true,” while in the trailer for the latest version, Collin Farrell asks himself, “If I’m not me, then who the hell am I?” Yep, shit’s deep, bro.

Check out “Total Recall” if you’re in the mood for some heavy on the action, light on the depth sci-fi. The film currently sits at a 31 percent on the Tomatometer, so I’d rent the original or see “The Dark Knight Rises” (again, if need be) before plunking down my hard-earned cash on this one.

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days

I knew it was a book series, but the only reason I had any inkling this was a sequel, let alone the third film in a series, is the fact that there was a colon in the tile. It turns out there have in fact been two “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” films prior to this one. When a series is able to release its third film in as many years, it screams phoned-in counter programming playing for a built-in audience. Here’s what this one’s about, per the official synopsis:

During his summer vacation, “Wimpy Kid” Greg Heffley, the hero of the phenomenally successful book series, hatches a plan to pretend he has a job at a ritzy country club – which fails to keep him away from the season’s dog days, including embarrassing mishaps at a public pool and a camping trip that goes horribly wrong.

The newest “Wimpy Kid” movie is at a 44 percent on the Tomatometer, which notes that it “fails to improve upon previous installments and will likely appeal to few outside its target audience.” How much could there be to improve upon, given that the first two films are at 53 and 47 percent, respectively? Like I said, this is phoned-in counter programming. If you need to sit in the AC with the kids quiet for 90 minutes, this one might be for you. Otherwise, avoid it.

Follow the writer on Twitter @NateKreichman.

Writer-director Joe Carnahan is proud of his latest film, a beyond tongue-in-cheek 2010 remounting of the 1980’s TV favorite, “The A-Team.” Available on a brand new, extras-laden DVD and Blu-Ray edition, the actioner stars Liam Neeson as A-Team leader Hannibal Smith, with backing by Bradley Cooper as the suave “Faceman” Peck, Sharlto Copley as the mildly insane H.M. Murdock and mixed martial artist Quinton “Rampage” Jackson as the Mohawk-wearing B.A. Baracus.

Never let it be said that Joe Carnahan is lacking in manly virtues and/or vices.

Premium Hollywood: Speaking of manliness, there’s a line in “The A-Team”: “Overkill is underrated.”

Joe Carnahan: Yes.

PH: This seems like a pretty good watchword for your career and your approach to making movies.

JC: Right. I think I’ve been perhaps unduly typecast as a guy who likes to hyper-edit and so on. I certainly have a style, but this kind of thing will always cancel out [other things]. There was a five minute tracking shot in “Narc” that was nothing but Ray Liotta talking, but nobody ever mentions that stuff. Listen, it was certainly the call to arms for this movie, “Overkill is underrated.” I did it as a thesis, as a joke. It’s the aside to the audience that says that we know it’s a lot, we know it’s overblown and overinflated, that’s the point of this little bon-mot here, this little movie.

PH: By the way, I was just catching up this morning, watching “Blood, Guts, Bullets, and Octane.”

JC: Wow. Good for you, man. Now that was designed to hide how bad we were as actors and to hide [our tiny budget]. We made that movie for eight grand. I mean it was like nothing, but at the same time it got us into Sundance. It was a great jumping off point but I also think that movies like “Blood, Guts,” “Smokin’ Aces,” even [“The A-Team”] to some extent, I’m gonna back-burn for a while and go for the stuff’s that been [left undone]. “The Grey,” which I’m going to do with Liam, which we start in a month, and then I’m going to do “White Jazz,” which is the “L.A. Confidential” sequel.

PH: You are going to do “White Jazz.”

JC: And I’m going to do “Killing Pablo” [based on the book about the hunt for the late Colombian drug lord, Pablo Escobar]. My focus is on getting those movies made because I think it’s always dangerous to color yourself as a certain kind of director and then people think “I know exactly what this guy’s all about.” It’s funny, the careers that I have admired the most are like [Steven] Soderbergh’s and Ang Lee’s — they don’t ever repeat themselves. I always use sports analogies, but a guy can bat clean-up, and he can hit lead-off, and he can play centerfield and catch and play third. That’s what you ultimately want to be: the five-tool guy. You want to be able to do everything. It’ll be an interesting process with “The Grey” because it’s an utter departure from any of this. It’s an R-rated drama about guys trying to survive a plane crash and getting hunted by wolves.

BE: It’s a man-versus-nature tale.

JC: Absolutely.

BE: That’s next, and then “White Jazz” after that?

JC: And then “White Jazz” after that, hopefully in the Fall.

BE: I have to ask because I am a pretty big James Ellroy fan. Now you say “sequel” — are you treating it as a sequel to “L.A. Confidential”?

[Note: “L.A. Confidential” and “White Jazz” are respectively the third and final books in a four-novel series by Ellroy. which begins with the previously filmed “The Black Dahlia”.]

JC: It’s interesting because it’s something with Ellroy with the rights. I can’t call the character Exley, even though I wanted Guy Pearce to play that role. Who knows, because people are realizing that that type of film is difficult to make. I’m actually excited that they’re making “Gangster Squad” at Warner Brothers. I’m hoping that that will re-introduce that type of film.

BE: Neo-noir?

JC: Yeah. And it’s not so forbidden to do period films because “White Jazz” is still an action movie. There’s still a lot of stuff going on in that film and it’s still very intriguing, very pulpy. It would lend itself to a bigger audience. Who knows?

BE: I personally would like to see the entire “L.A. Quartet” made.

JC: You and me both. If I can make “American Tabloid” [actually a part of Ellroy’s follow-up “Underworld USA” trilogy] and “The Big Nowhere”…

BE: “The Big Nowhere” is great. Anyhow, in “The A-Team” you have some very impressive people in the cast. Liam Neeson, of course. I was surprised, Brian Bloom [who plays the deadly but irritable assassin, Pike] really impressed me.

JC: He’s great.

BE: I was really surprised when I just found out this morning that he was also one of the writers.

JC: Yes, he and I wrote it. Brian and I are really good friends. Really close friends. He and I were writing this other thing together, we kind of hatched this. Alex Young, whose a good friend of mine, is a producer here on the lot. At the time, he was president of production with [current Fox president of production] Emma [Watts]. He said, we got “The A-Team.” Any interest in you doing “The A-Team”? I thought, well, that’s interesting. Brian and I were kind of in that work mode and I said, “What do you think of ‘The A-Team’?” It literally took us ten minutes going on the Internet to find the lynchpin, the plates. [i.e. stolen plates for making counterfeit U.S. currency that Hannibal Smith and company must recover to clear their names] and find the story about Saddam trying to rob the central bank of Iraq 24 hours before “Shock and Awe.” He literally had his son go in there with what amounted to a stick-up note saying “We want 600 million in Euros, 400 million in American dollars,” and then I think it was bills, T-bills, whatever the hell it was. I thought, “How fascinating, this guy tried to rob his own country on the way out the door.”

BE: So is Brian primarily an actor or a writer?

JC: He’s doing both now. He’s writing “Remarkable Fellows” for Universal. He’s multitasking right now, but I think Brian is a lot more comfortable as a writer. He prefers that, but he’s so good in the movie.

[I get the “one more question” signal from the publicist.]

BE:I have to ask, the 3D movie gag [in which a Humvee crashes through the wall of a psychiatric ward while a 3D film featuring a Humvee is being projected], is that an homage to “Bachelor Party”?

JC: Oh, God, “Bachelor Party” — that’s right. I didn’t think of that. The 3D gag. We didn’t really realize how kind of prescient the whole thing was going to be — this was right after “Avatar” — that everything would be in 3D. In the looping, we actually had somebody saying in the background, “I hate 3D.” No. I just thought it would be a funny way to break Murdock out to have an actual 3D movie and have the thing come through the wall. But, you’re right, it reminds me of “Bachelor Party.”

BE: Just one quick follow-up. Are you trying to stay away from this whole 3D craze?

JC: Now that Scorsese’s making a 3D movie, it’s out there. I still feel like my favorite 3D film is “Dial M for Murder,” which I actually got to see in 3D, because I think Hitchcock took what at the time was a gimmick and made it work to his advantage. He created almost a proscenium for the audience. Then you felt like you were in that room. He really avoided [throwing things at the camera]. I think he just had Grace Kelly sort of [put her hands in front of her] when she’s getting strangled. He was so free of that stuff. He stayed away from it, which I love.

I watched “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” this weekend, and one thing really struck me as I took in the initial (and totally gratuitous) shot of Megan Fox in cutoff jean shorts half-straddling a motorcycle: Wow, she’s hot. Throughout the course of the next 150 minutes – really, did a “Transformers” sequel need to be that long? – I found myself observing Ms. Fox’s work wondering if she had what it takes to transform – pun intended – from starlet to star.

By most standards, she’s already a movie star. She has played a lead in two “Transformers” installments, had a supporting role (as a vacant actress, no less) in the Simon Peg comedy “How to Lose Friends & Alienate People” and she recently starred as the title character in the horror flick “Jennifer’s Body.” Moreover, she seems to have a stranglehold on the current #1 ranking as the Hollywood Girl That Guys Want to Bang. But does this really make her a star?

Not in my book. There was no point in the latest “Transformers” installment where Fox couldn’t have been replaced by Elisha Cuthbert, Jessica Biel or some other former (or future) #1 Hollywood Girl That Guys Want to Bang. When I started to type this up, I actually blanked on her name, and had to look it up on IMDB.com. (Ah, yes, Megan Fox.) If nothing else, that makes her a starlet.

Every year or two, there’s a new crop of young’ns vying for the title of “it” girl, and Fox owns it, for now. But it’s a dicey transition from being a hot young thing to developing a long-lasting, viable career in the movie business.

So, does she have what it takes to become a star?

Far be it from me to pretend to be an expert on the matter, but my gut feeling is no. Watching “Revenge of the Fallen,” I determined that Fox has exactly two expressions: 1) seductive (which she no doubt honed on the poor young fellas she grew up with in Florida) and 2) blank. When Michael Bay wants seductive, she can deliver. When he wants sad, frightened or perplexed, she gives him blank.

“All right, Megan. Give me frightened!”

Starlets are disposable in Hollywood. Anyone who is in a film purely as a T&A placeholder can and will be easily replaced. For a starlet to go on to have a long and successful career, she has to possess some combination of the following: 1) serious acting chops, and/or 2) a cuteness that makes her non-threatening to her female audience.

Gwyneth Paltrow is an example of the former. Her big break was in “Se7en” as Brad Pitt’s gorgeous but doomed wife, and she then starred opposite David Schwimmer in “The Pallbearer.” Her career could have faded into nothingness, but the girl proved she could act by taking not-so-easy roles in “Emma” and “Great Expectations,” and winning an Oscar for Best Actress in “Shakespeare In Love.” At that point, we knew that she was always going to be able to find work. The same goes for Julia Roberts, Halle Berry, Nicole Kidman, Charlize Theron, Hilary Swank, Reese Witherspoon, Kate Winslet, Angelina Jolie and Renee Zellweger, who have all been honored by the Academy one way or another.

As for the cuteness factor, there are numerous examples of actresses that are known more for their likability than they are for their acting chops: Meg Ryan, Sandra Bullock, Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, Jennifer Garner, Jennifer Aniston, Kate Hudson and Kirsten Dunst are just a few examples. The aforementioned Oscar faves Zellweger, Witherspoon and Roberts also have an innate cuteness that women seem to love. Of all the romantic comedies that have come out in the past 10-15 years, three out of four have probably starred one (or more) of these actresses.

Unfortunately for Ms. Fox, she doesn’t fall into either category. She currently lacks the acting chops to go serious, and the fact that she’s drop-dead gorgeous actually works against her, as it alienates much of the female audience that so strongly supports the rom-com genre. In comparison to some of her peers, Scarlett Johansson is just as pretty, but proved in “Lost In Translation” and “Vicky Christina Barcelona” (among others) that she is a capable actor. Katherine Heigl is beautiful, but has a built-in fan base from “Grey’s Anatomy” that has allowed her to cultivate a significant career in romantic comedies. Anne Hathaway, Rachel McAdams and Natalie Portman aren’t necessarily on the knockout level of Fox, but they have proven that they can act.

No, Fox’s career seems to be headed the way of Jessica Alba, another former #1 Hollywood Girl That Guys Want to Bang. Alba made a splash on television with “Dark Angel,” starred in “Sin City” and a couple of “Fantastic Four” flicks, but since then it has been nothing but flops like “Into the Blue,” “Good Luck Chuck,” “The Eye,” and “The Love Guru.” Another example would be Jessica Biel, who has starred in “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,” “Stealth,” “Next” and “I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry.” Her career, like Alba’s, appears to be based mainly on her looks and is heading sideways at best.

Jessica Alba: actress.

Fox has a couple of options. First, she could continue to make the kind of movies she has been making. She has yet to reach the same level that Alba has, but she’s getting there. Surely, there are a couple of big action flicks and a few bad comedies down that road. Or she could use her “Transformers” money to find a good acting teacher and work tirelessly on her craft. A couple more installments will keep the cash rolling in. Once her teacher deems her ready, she can find a few smaller roles that won’t allow her to lean on her looks. (Think Jennifer Connelly as a drug addict in “Requiem for a Dream.” I’m convinced that it completely revived her career. Before that, she was known, at least to me, as the well-endowed knockout that rode the mechanical horse in “Career Opportunities.”) But back to Fox – if she goes that route, critics (who were hot for her all along, but loathed themselves for it) will applaud her courage and tenacity. From there, she could very well go on to have a serious acting career.

Does she have what it takes? Not right now.

But damn if she doesn’t look good in a pair of jean shorts.

Today we associate multi-talented playwright Noël Coward with witty repartee, a forgiving view of sexual peccadilloes, twenties pop standards by Cole Porter and Coward himself, and the heavy use of cocktails. The play, “Easy Virtue,” about a country household thrown into chaos when the family’s only son impetuously marries an American woman with a shadowy past, however, was a melodrama and the 1928 silent film version was directed by the none other than a young Alfred Hitchcock. 81 years later, Australian director Stephen Elliott (“The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert”) and co-writer Sheridan Jobbins have taken a very different tack, modified the plot, and turned the drama into a mostly comedic confection filled with witty repartee, a forgiving view of sexual peccadilloes, the music of Coward, Porter and, er, Tom Jones and Billy Ocean, and the heavy use of champagne and wine — but hardly any martinis.

Elliott does a good enough job finding the material’s comedic possibilities, but his style doesn’t quite fit and he gets into trouble when he indulges in some annoying Baz Luhrmann-esque musical/stylistic flourishes. Still, the main problem here is that, while Colin Firth as the family’s alienated patriarch and Kristin Scott Thomas as the repressed mother do first rate work, and Ben Barnes (a.k.a. “Prince Caspian”) is able as the young husband, Jessica Biel, in the crucial role of the extremely non-ugly American, barely registers. Her colorless performance tips the film over the edge of being an enjoyable diversion and into mediocrity.

Click to buy “Easy Virtue”

Of course, as Stein is quick to point out, most American males aren’t very familiar with Biel’s body of work, but rather the actress’ body itself, and as his friend Taj so brilliantly puts it, “I’m obsessed with a girl I’ve never seen move.” Then again, aren’t we all, which makes her most recent gig in “I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry” all the more important. Sure, the sexy cover girl can be found in yet another drool-inducing photo shoot in this month’s issue of GQ (see below), but it takes a lot more than good looks to make it in Hollywood these days, and Biel hopes that her appearance in the summer comedy is just the thing she needs to help her rise to the top.

She’s certainly in good hands with co-stars like Sandler and Kevin James, but Biel wasn’t about to take her role lightly:

“It was a little bit intimidating,” she says. “I really admire Adam and Kevin, but then, I didn’t try to equal them or one-up them, and the character I created didn’t have to be that. She’s the straight woman, but very fun and very cool and just—attainable. That’s the kind of part that I’d like to play more. I mean, a vampire hunter? Is that really attainable? I’d just like to play something a little more quirky, interesting, outrageous. And uninhibited.”

Click here to read the full interview and check out the new photo shoot.